Sascha Lenz wrote:
waering all my hats as private internet citizen, network operator for my own network, network architect for a non-commerial organisation supporting new technologies, LIR, ISP, and IT Consultant for big to large customers, i hearby state that i ...
To be a good internet citizen, you should read Saltzer's paper on end to end argument.
a) have operational IPv6 networks for 6 years now
How many end users do you have?
b) don't like NAT
I don't like legacy NAT too because it is not complete nor correct. A direct consequence of the end to end argument is: NAT can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the end hosts behind a NAT gateway. which is not the case with legacy NAT.
f) don't see a reason to conserve IPv4 space g) don't see a reason not to migrate to IPv6
The problem, here, is that there is no path to migrate to IPv6. Or, do you still believe dual stack approach work?
i) don't support any more complex NAT setup than we already have in the wild now
Fully agreed. Keep It Simple, Stupid. How do you think about proposals from people desperately working to deploy IPv6 to have complex and stateful NAT between 4 and 6? Masataka Ohta